Editorial and peer review process
Cardiometry is an international, double-blind peer-reviewed, open-access journal. A double-blind type of peer review is mandatory for processing of all papers submitted to the Journal. It means that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer. Our aim is to provide all authors with an efficient and constructive editorial and peer-review process. All types of articles, except Editorials, Lectures and Opinions are peer reviewed by both editorial board members and outside expert reviewers. The criteria for selection of articles are the author's ability to identify the cause-and-effect relations of the phenomena and correlation of the results with general and particular characteristics of the object of research. Articles describing not scientifically grounded results will not be published. Submissions are judged on the importance and originality of the research, scientific strength and clarity of the manuscript. If the paper is within the scope of the journal with regard to content and of the appropriate quality standard, the editorial board will promptly assess the manuscript and will decide on submitting it for peer review.
The choice of reviewers is up to the editorial staff. The Cardiometry Editorial team maintains its own database of qualified peer reviewers who are leading experts in this field of research using A&I services, social networks and other communications. As part of our editorial procedure, we regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information. In the Cover Letter authors may recommend specific referees and/or indicate a limited number of referees who should not review the submission. Cardiometry respects these requests but is not obliged to follow them. The Editorial Team Members base their choice on many factors, including expertise, specific recommendations, and previous experience. Despite the double blind type of peer review, we also usually try to avoid referees who have obvious competing interests or are somehow interested in the decision. Such interests are as follows: a contribution to the manuscript, a history of dispute with the authors (we understand that sometimes the author can be identified because his/her subject field is very narrow), financial interests, etc.
It is not possible for us to know of all possible biases, so we encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and decline invitations to be a reviewer in cases where they feel unable to be objective. The editors and Cardiometry staff try to recognize a potential competing interest considering the information provided by the reviewers. If necessary, the manuscript will be subject to a special review of the statistical methods used. Decisions are always argumented. Authors are provided with editors’ and reviewers’ comments. We do not edit reviewer reports but ask referees to avoid robust offensive language. Our editors record the quality and timeliness of the reviews. Referees who repeatedly produce poor quality, rude, defamatory or unconstructive reviews will be ignored. Cardiometry journal has its double blind peer review model so we do not release referees' identities to authors or to other referees, except when referees specifically ask us to do it.
Cardiometry requests the referees who delegate peer review to other members of their staff or to outside experts inform the assigned editor about it.
All Editorial Staff, journal employees and external referees should treat the review process strictly confidential and not allowed to make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication of the manuscript unless they have the authors' specific written permission.
All peer reviewers should adhere The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers during the peer-review process.
Steps of the Editorial Review Process
First of all, a submission passes a technical quality control by our Technical Support staff. After passing the technical control, it is sent to the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Editors. This step is an initial evaluation. Then a Member of Editorial advisory board is assigned who decides whether to invite external peer reviewers. If a manuscript is determined to be outside of the journal's scope, is not of sufficient general interest or significance, or technical aspects of the work do not meet the journal's standards, it is returned to the authors prior to external peer review. The above procedure usually takes approximately a week of submission.
Reviewers should respond within 3 weeks of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly. Following the practice of PLoS One, you will be asked to complete a peer-review form, to focus and streamline the review process.
1. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- to reject the manuscript outright.
2. We politely request that the editor be notified if the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
After receipt of the reviewers' comments, the Assigned Editor makes a decision, often after consultation with other editors.
For manuscripts that are peer reviewed externally, the average duration between submission and final decision is approximately a month.
The editorial board makes its decisions based on the reviews of the experts. Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
A final publication decision can be different from reviewer’s opinion (especially when the field is narrow). In this case, the reviewer should not feel that his/her recommendations were not considered or properly appreciated, because it is the job of the editorial team to make final decision.
There are several types of decision possible:
1. accept the manuscript as submitted - Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
2. send back for improvements - If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
3. reject - The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
A decision letter to the corresponding author will be drafted. PDF proof of the manuscript submitted will be e-mailed to the corresponding author.
A manuscript which has been sent back to the authors for improvements requested by the editors and/or reviewers is reviewed again, after which the editorial board makes final decision. If you wish to appeal a decision you should contact the Editorial board explaining in detail your reasons for the appeal. All appeals will be discussed and the decision will be sent to the applicant. We do not consider second appeals.
Policy for submissions by the editorial team members
As all editors at Cardiometry are active scientists and researchers, it is acceptable for them to publish their own papers in the journal, particularly in the circumstances where the topic is fundamentally innovative and therefore the choice of appropriate journals is limited, as is very often the case with our journal. This represents a special instance of potential conflict of interest, especially in cases of submissions from decision-making editors. In reviewing submissions from Editorial Staff members, Cardiometry follows the guidelines for good editorial practice set by international editorial organizations, such as World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), ICMJE, and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), The European Association of Science Editors (EASE).
According to the above recommendations, Members of Editorial Staff or journal employees are never involved in editorial decisions about their own submissions. All editors should fill in and sign an official Conflict of interest statement, when working with paper.
To minimize any bias, the manuscript, submitted by one of the Member of Editorial Staff, is sent to the Editor-in-Chief who assigns the editor with no conflict of interest to further process the paper. Thus, the paper is supervised and decisions are made by an editor who acts independently of the submitting editor. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the decision of the assigned editor for objectivity before the final decision. In some cases, the review process is handled by an outside independent expert. Editors who make final decisions on manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial interests in any of the issues they might judge. Any member of the journal staff, if he/she participates in editorial decisions, must recuse himself/herself if a conflict of interest exists. The journal staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain.